Cited by 2,917Resilience and Mental HealthOptimism, Hope, and Well-beingAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes

Appraisal, coping, health status, and psychological symptoms

Folkman, Susan, Lazarus, Richard S., Gruen, Rand J., DeLongis, Anita·1986·Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

Abstract

In this study we examined the relation between personality factors (mastery and interpersonal trust), primary appraisal (the stakes a person has in a stressful encounter), secondary appraisal (options for coping), eight forms of problem- and emotion-focused coping, and somatic health status and psychological symptoms in a sample of 150 community-residing adults. Appraisal and coping processes should be characterized by a moderate degree of stability across stressful encounters for them to have an effect on somatic health status and psychological symptoms. These processes were assessed in five different stressful situations that subjects experienced in their day-to-day lives. Certain processes (e.g., secondary appraisal) were highly variable, whereas others (e.g., emotion-focused forms of coping) were moderately stable. We entered mastery and interpersonal trust, and primary appraisal and coping variables (aggregated over five occasions), into regression analyses of somatic health status and psychological symptoms. The variables did not explain a significant amount of the variance in somatic health status, but they did explain a significant amount of the variance in psychological symptoms. The pattern of relations indicated that certain variables were positively associated and others negatively associated with symptoms.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/0022-3514.50.3.571

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

No citation lists for this paper

No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.

References 47 · Cited by 2,917

Authors
Folkman, S., Lazarus, R. S., Gruen, R. J., & DeLongis, A.
Affiliations
University of California, Berkeley (US)
Venue
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
Published
1986
Volume
50
Issue
3
Pages
571-579
ISSN
  • 0022-3514 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-1315
OpenAlex
W2097529337
Cited by
2,917
References
47
Citations by year
2026: 89 · 2025: 125 · 2024: 133 · 2023: 156 · 2022: 139 · 2021: 171 · 2020: 122 · 2019: 132 · 2018: 92 · 2017: 92 · 2016: 81 · 2015: 121 · 2014: 106 · 2013: 101 · 2012: 97
FWCI
34.10
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Resilience and Mental Health
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Optimism, Hope, and Well-being
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
Keywords
primary appraisal, secondary appraisal, coping, mastery, interpersonal trust, problem-focused coping, emotion-focused coping, psychological symptoms, stress, personality factors
MeSH terms
Adaptation, Psychological, Adjustment Disorders, Adult, Female, Humans, Life Change Events, Male, Middle Aged, Personality Tests, Psychometrics, Somatoform Disorders

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review